The Master of Ceremonies at Solemn Mass

 

Magister Cæremoniarum
Per
Missa Solemnis

Auctore
Stephanus Petrus Benedictus Wolfe

 

Prolegomena

The Master of ceremonies (M.C.) or ceremoniar or Magister cæremoniarium or cæremoniarius should know not only what he has to do himself, but also the function of everyone else. (According to the Ceremonial, I. v, 1; the Bishop should have two masters of ceremonies, the first a priest, the second at least a subdeacon, who must know all functions performed by each person). It is his business to see that the ceremony is carried out correctly by all who take part in it. (Si quid erroris accidat, aut incaute fiat, ipsi uni Cæremoniario imputari solet. C.E. I. v, 2). He must, if necessary, guide the other servers by some sign, as little noticeable as possible. If the mistake is unimportant it is wiser to let it pass at the time and to point it out afterwards. He must give directions by signs, but these should be given in a way as little noticeable as possible. He should never pull or push anyone about in the sanctuary, or really try to not do so at least.

M.C. vests in Cassock and cotta and prepares chalice, if sacristan hasn’t done so, and a ciborium if necessary and puts it on the credence table. He marks the Missale, open at the Introit.[1]

1. 30 minutes before Mass:

• Consult ordo for Missale setup and special rubrics.
• Set Missale ribbons and review layout of propers, etc.
• Consult the Liber Usualis to examine chants for sedilia cue time.
• If necessary, determine Kyriale modes and review-prepare intonation card.
• Ensure altar and credence have been prepared correctly.
• If there is an Asperges, ensure card is prepared at the foot of the altar and aspersory in     sacristy.
• Supervise servers and ensure silence and order.

2. 10 minutes before Mass:

• Sees to it that the vesting of C, D, and Sd is carried out correctly. MC helps C vest if D     and Sd are still vesting.

3. 5 minutes before Mass:

• Arrange everybody for procession.

Preparations:

Sacristy:

• Vestments for Sacred Ministers.
• Birettas for all 3 Sacred Ministers

Sanctuary:

A. Credence table

• Sufficient room bust be allowed for the cruets on a tray to be placed behind the chalice assembly and for the Acolytes’ Processional Candles to be placed on the back corners and the intonation card and other required cards if necessary. Also,
• Epistolary/Evangelarium marked properly facing left and positioned on top of the left side folds of the humeral veil.
• Chalice prepared as usual, except burse and chalice veil are not placed on it.
• Humeral veil centered over chalice assembly and excess on sides are folded over each other or folded in the way the priest would assemble the chalice veil on the altar during Low Mass.
• Burse is placed on top of humeral veil/chalice assembly.
• Ciborium and its veil are placed behind the chalice.
• Communion plate is not used, unless needed for another priest distributing Holy          Communion. May be kept in sacristy or on credence table for this purpose.

B. Sedilia: 3 stools

General Rules:

• The Deacon (D) is usually to the right of the Celebrant (C), whereas the Subdeacon (Sd) is usually to C’s left.
• Solita oscula’s are only given to C; never to D or Sd, even if either is a priest.
• MC does not incense anyone during a Solemn Mass, or hold the Communion plate for another cleric in major orders distributing Holy Communion.[2]

Ceremonial:

Processional:

The MC processes in front of Sd, by himself. He remains uncovered the whole liturgy. If C is wearing a cope, D and Sd will hold C’s cope during the procession and the MC will process in front of them. Otherwise D and Sd will simply process in front of C.

If there’s an Asperges:

After receiving birettas from Sd and D in the sanctuary, MC Immediately signals a genuflection and then puts the birettas on the sedilia and then genuflects in front of the altar – behind the SMs and goes to the Gospel side – the Sd’s left, and then signals all to kneel. After Celebrant sprinkles the altar, the MC signals everyone to rise then he signals a genuflection. MC and Thurifer switch sides, and the C sprinkles the clergy in Choir and torchbearers in choir. Then he sprinkles the faithful. On the way back to the altar the MC and Th are already on their respective sides. MC signals genuflection at the foot. MC makes sure everyone bows at the Gloria Patri. Then MC signals C to sprinkle the MC, then the Th, and then the other inferior ministers. After the oration he signals a genuflection and SMs proceed to the sedilia to vest the C for Mass.

If there is no Asperges, the MC takes the birettas from D and Sd in the sanctuary, not kissing them, and then signals a genuflection at the foot for the SMs. He then goes to the sedilia to put the birettas on their respective stools and then goes to the foot in plano and signals inferior ministers to kneel.

Preparatory Prayers at the Foot:

During the whole liturgy the MC remains uncovered. MC kneels at the Deacons right, maybe a little behind. MC answers, with D and Sd, during the prayers at the foot, in a low voice, and MC makes the usual signs of the cross and inclinations. When finished the MC signals all to stand.

1^st Incensing of the altar:

MC goes to the epistle side of the altar steps with Th. MC takes incense boat from Th and they immediately ascend the altar steps to the Predella. MC presents the incense boat to the D and supervises the imposition, ready to intervene if necessary. MC receives boat back from D and gives it to the Th. While the C is incensing the altar cross the MC removes the Missal and stands in plano with it, facing towards the Gospel side; MC replaces the Missal as soon as the Epistle side has been incensed, in neither case does the MC genuflect. MC then descends in plano, where he stands at the epistle corner while the C is incensed by the D.[3]

At the Introit, Kyrie, & Gloria:

After the incensing of the C, the MC goes directly to the Missal and stands at the Cs right, forming a semicircle with the D and Sd. He points out the Introit with the open palm of the right hand. The MC will be at the Missal, to attend to the C, indicating and turning the pages whenever the D is not there. The MC should also make sure that the D and Sd are on the corners of the Epistle Altar steps. The descending order should be – C on Predella, D on second altar step, and Sd on Sanctuary floor. They should be diagonally apart from each other, shoulder point to shoulder point. If the choir is going to take a long time to sing the Kyrie, after the C has finished the Kyrie, the MC will conduct the SMs to the sedilia. Whenever the SMs sit at the sedilia the MC will oversee the D handing C his biretta and then D and Sd bow to each other and then both bow to the C and then sit and cover themselves. The MC will then indicate to inferior ministers that they may sit as well. The MC will stand at the right hand of the Deacon facing down the nave or a little bit at an angle, facing the nave and south transept. When the choir sings the last invocation of the Kyrie Eleison, the MC bows to C as a sign that he should go back to the altar. He leads the SMs to the foot of the altar (seeing that they salute the choir on the Epistle side and then on the Gospel side), genuflects when they reverence the altar, and goes to the Epistle corner.[4]

If the C and SMs do not go sit down for the Kyrie, then, shortly before the last invocation is sung, the MC gives the indication to the D and Sd to line up behind the C. When the choir begins the last Kyrie the MC bows to the SMs to indicate to them to go to the middle of the altar. The MC goes to the credence to get the intonation card and then ascends the altar steps and faces the priest and indicates which Gloria intonation to intone on the card. When the C has intoned the first verse of Gloria in excelsis, MC bows head with C and then indicates to the other Sacred Ministers to ascend the Altar to stand next to the C to say the Gloria with the C. When they have finished reciting the Gloria, the MC makes the sign of the cross with the SMs, the MC leads them (after a due reverence to the altar) by the shorter way, to the sedilia. The MC must be watchful that they do not move on the way to the sedilia while any of the verses are being sung that require an inclination. They must wait until such a verse has ended. But if they have started, they go on. The MC stands by their side as they sit (as explained above), and bows to the C as a sign when he is to uncover at the verses Adoramus te, Gratias agimus tibi, Jesu Christe, Suscipe deprecationem nostram, and Jesu Christe. The MC bows to the altar during these words. After the last Jesu Christe has been sung, the MC signals the C to rise and he leads them to the foot of the altar, signals a genuflection. The MC then goes to the Missal at the Epistle side, points out the place for the Collects, and turns the pages.[5]

At the beginning of the last collect, the MC goes to the credence. Here he takes the Epistolary in both hands, the opening of the pages to his right; The MC hands it to the Sd, bowing once before he gives him the book and once after. The MC stands a little behind the Sd, at his left. As the last Collect is ending (having bowed to the cross at the words Jesum Christum, if they occur), the MC accompanies the Sd to the middle of the foot of the altar, genuflects with him, reverences to the clergy left and right, and goes with him to the place where the Epistle is chanted. If there is any place at which they should bow or genuflect, the MC bows or genuflects with the Sd at such places. As soon as the Sd had chanted the Epistle, the MC does not respond Deo Gratias, the MC leads the Sd back to the middle of the foot of the altar, signals a genuflection and bows to the choir with the Sd; they go to the Epistle side, where the Sd is blessed by the C. The MC takes the Epistolary from the Sd, with bows, and return the book to AC1 with bows near the credence. MC points out the Gradual, Alleluia, etc. to the C.[6] The C at the middle says the Munda cor meum, the Sd carries the Missal to the Gospel side. When the C has begun the reading of the Gospel the MC bows to the D and hands him Epistolary/Evangelium at the foot of the altar on the Epistle side. The MC waits at the Epistle corner while the C finishes the Gospel and then ascends the altar with Th to the predella to impose incense. He supervises the imposition of incense.  While the D says the Munda cor meum the MC will lead the Th and AC1 and AC2 to the middle of the Foot of the altar and wait there with them. Allow room for D and Sd and ensure AC1 and AC2 have left enough room. The Formation should ultimately look like this:

AC2  MC  Sd  D  AC1

All genuflect together, bow to the choir right and left, and so go in procession to the place where the Gospel is to be sung – procession proceeds with Th in front with AC1 and AC2, MC, then Sd and D. The Group at the place where the Gospel is sung is arranged as such:

AC2  Sd  AC1

Th  D  MC

The MC makes the sign of the cross on forehead, lips, and breast, with the thumb, as the D signs Sequentia (or Initium) s. Evangelii, etc. Then the MC takes the thurible from the Th and hands it to the D; when the Epistolary has been incensed he passes the thurible back to the Th. During the Gospel the MC stands at the right of the D and turns the pages. If the D genuflects at any verse, the MC does so as well. If the Holy Name is sung, the MC nods to the Epistolary just before it is read and then turns and bows to C (who bows to the Altar Cross). When the Gospel is finished Do Not respond with, “Laus tibi Christe.” As soon as the Gospel is ended, the MC leads AC1 and AC2, behind the Sd, to the foot of the altar. He signals a genuflection and retrieves the Epistolary from the Sd and puts it back on the credence table. Meanwhile the D incenses the C from where the Gospel was sung and then goes back to the sanctuary with the Th and genuflects at the foot with Th.

If there is a Sermon:

If there is a sermon at this point, the MC directs the SMs to the sedilia. The MC helps the C take off the Chasuble[7] either at the Altar or at the sedilia, and gives him his biretta. He accompanies the C to the pulpit for the Sermon.[8] If the D or another Deacon or Priest who is not one of the SMs gives the sermon the MC may accompany them to the pulpit or he may stay with the C at the sedilia.

Creed:

If there is no sermon the MC leads the SMs to the Center of the altar, lined up in a single file behind the C. If there was a sermon, and the sermon is finished, the MC leads C to the altar or sedilia and assists him in putting the chasuble back on. If this takes place at the altar the MC makes sure the D and Sd arrive at the altar with due reverences and line up behind the C. If it was the D, the MC helps the D put the Dalmatic and maniple back on. Then the MC leads the SMs to the foot signals a genuflection and goes to the credence to get the intonation card. The MC ascends the altar and shows the intonation card to the C indicating the intonation. The MC bows his head with C at the word Deum and then turns and bows to the D and Sd to ascend the altar and stand next to the C. The MC genuflects at the Et incarnutus est. The MC stands at the Epistle corner during this time. When the Choir is about to sing the Et Incarnatus est the MC goes to the foot and signals a genuflection for the SMs and inferior ministers to kneel. A cushion is required for a prelate and the MC will ensure all this is in place before the signal for the genuflection. After the verse has been sung the MC signals all to stand and leads the SMs to the sedilia. The MC then goes to the credence table and retrieves the burse. The MC brings the burse to the D, bowing before and after presenting the burse to him, and then stands at his usual place. At the words simul adoratur the MC bows to the C to remove his biretta, and at the words Et vitam venture sæculi he gives the sign to return to the altar. The SMs and the MC go by the longer way, bow to the choir, genuflect at the altar steps. The MC bows and genuflects with them and goes to his place at the Epistle corner. If there is no Creed, the MC takes his normal position and after the C says Oremus, leads Sd to credence.

The Offertory, Canon, Communion & Postcommunion:

After C says Oremus, for the offertory, lead Sd to the credence. MC should assist the Sd. Make sure that the veil is clasped or tied. Sd will bring the chalice to the altar alone. If there are ciborium, the MC may take these to the altar. The MC may wait at his position on the Epistle corner until it’s time to impose incense. The MC may assist with the cruets. AC1 will bring the cruets on the tray and the MC will take them and put them on the altar. The MC then takes them off the altar and hands the cruets and tray back to the AC1. For the incensing of the altar the MC meets the Th on the epistle side and both ascend the altar steps to the predella. MC gives the boat to the D and then supervises the imposition. The MC receives the boat back and gives it to the Th. The MC then descends with Th. The MC and Th go to the foot of the altar behind the Sd and both make a genuflection. Then the Th ascends to the predella and stands on the C’s left. The MC goes to the side of the altar and at a convenient moment, preferably when the C is incensing the Epistle side, goes up and takes the missal stand. The MC descends with the Missal stand and holds it in plano, until the Gospel side corner has been incensed.  The MC then replaces the Missal stand close to the corporal and stands by it, assisting the C. He faces the C while he is being incensed by the D. After the C has been incensed the MC remains at the Missal during the C’s lavabo all the way through to the Preface. The MC turns to his right to be incensed himself by the Th, bowing before and after.[9] At the Orate Fratres, the D and Sd should say the Suscipiat, otherwise if they are both preoccupied the MC can say it. The MC should indicate, however, to the D to make the response. The MC then indicated the Secrets to the C. After the Secrets the MC turns the Missal pages to the Preface. MC remains at the Missal during the Preface. When C sings “Angeli atque Archangeli,” the MC signals D and Sd to ascend to the predella and stand next to the C, the Sd to his left and the D to his right. The MC descends per breviorem and stands at the Gospel side corner in plano for the recitation of the Sanctus.[10] The MC then proceeds to the Epistle side genuflecting when he crosses over, also making sure he doesn’t interfere with Sd and the Tbs coming out of the Sacristy. The D takes the place of the MC at the Missal. Once at the Epistle side, a little before the Hanc igitur, the MC will see to it that the thurible has ample incense for the Consecration. At the Hanc igitur, the D will go from the Gospel side to the Epistle side, genuflecting on the second altar step while doing so. When the D has performed this action, the MC will give the signal for all to kneel for the Consecration. After the consecration the MC will signal all to rise[11] and the MC stands at or near the Epistle Corner. At the words nobis quoque peccatoribus or no later than per quem hæc omnia the MC goes to the Gospel side per longiorem, genuflecting behind the Sd and ascends to the Missal after the D has genuflected and switched to the Epistle side. The MC is now on the C’s left and turns the pages of the Missal. The MC genuflects each time the C and D genuflect. Before the Pater noster, when the C chants the words audemus dicere, the MC gives a sign to the D that he go stand behind the C. At the words dimitte nobis the MC signs to the D and Sd to genuflect and go to the Epistle side. AC 1 removes the humeral veil from the Sd. The MC is still on the left side of the C. The MC genuflects with C and D when the C uncovers the chalice for the fraction. At the words, Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum, the MC gives a sign to the Sd to genuflect and ascend the altar to the left of the C. The MC descends from the altar and stands in plano at the Gospel side corner and makes a medium bow of the body and strikes his breast for the Agnus Dei. After the Agnus Dei, the MC proceeds to the Epistle side, genuflecting in the middle behind the Sd. Once on the Epistle side he will stand to the Sd’s right, standing a little behind him, and wait for the D to give the Pax to the Sd. After the Sd receives the Pax from D, the MC signals a genuflection. Then the MC escorts the Sd to the senior cleric in choir. The Sd gives him the Pax. Then the MC escorts the Sd to the other side of the choir, first genuflecting in the middle and the Sd gives the Pax to senior cleric on that side. After this, the MC leads the Sd back to foot of the altar, signals a genuflection, and the Sd gives the Pax to the MC. The MC then gives the Pax to the Th or AC 1. The MC then remains in plano at the Epistle corner. After the D and Sd switch sides and open the tabernacle, the MC signals all to kneel. The MC then hands the second Confiteor card to the D while kneeling behind him. The MC will take the card back from the D at about ideo precor. Or, the MC will have a duplicate second Confiteor card, in which case, the D keeps his card and the MC ascends directly to the predella to present the card to the C. After the Absolution, the MC descends and puts the cards back on the credence table and immediately leads the inferior ministers to the foot of the altar for communion. The MC should make sure that the Communion cloth is brought by the inferior ministers for their Communion. Preferably this should all be done before the C starts the Ecce Agnus Dei. If the MC is receiving Communion, he will personally lead the inferior ministers to the foot and will stand to the right of the Th. If he does not receive Communion[12] he will motion by some sign for the inferior ministers to process over to the foot of the altar to receive Communion and the MC will kneel in plano on the Epistle side facing the SMs on the predella. After the last Domine non sum dignus, the MC will stand and oversee the distribution of Holy Communion. The MC ensures that the Communion cloth on the communion rail is draped over for the faithful and makes sure that two torch bearers escort the SMs to the Communion rail. If there is another Priest or Deacon to help distributing Holy Communion, the MC will see to it that the Priest or Deacon has an inferior minister with a communion plate. Otherwise, the MC oversees the distribution of Holy Communion at the Communion rail. After the distribution of Holy Communion the MC will follow the SMs back to the foot and help with the C’s alb if the D or Sd forget to do this and then he kneels in plano on the Epistle side facing the SMs on the predella. When the C closes the tabernacle, the MC signals for everyone to stand. The MC then oversees the ablutions. He may stand on the second altar step facing towards the nave to do so. At this time the MC should make sure that AC2 is draping the Communion cloth on the communion rail over to the sanctuary side. After the D has switched the Missal to the Epistle side, the MC may go up to turn the pages to the proper place for the Communio & Postcommunio and remains at the Missal. The MC may place the intonation card for the Ite, Missa est/Benedicamus Domino behind the Missal stand if he wishes to do so. This will save time if the credence is some distance from the altar. While the Sd is finishing the ablutions, the MC indicates the Communio to the C at the Missal. Then the MC indicates for the C to go to the center of the altar to chant Dominus vobiscum and then the MC indicates the Postcommunio to the C when he has returned to the Missal.  After the Postcommunio and subsequent commemorations, if there are any, the MC indicates to the C to proceed to the middle of the Altar and closes the Missal.[13]  The MC then takes the intonation card and stands at the D’s left and holds the intonation card in front of him while the C is chanting Dominus vobiscum. The D then chants the Ite, Missa est or the Benedicamus Domino facing the altar. After the D has done this, the MC takes the intonation card back to the credence and then remains in plano on the Epistle side. Before the C says, Benedicat vos…, the MC will indicate for everyone to kneel. After the blessing the MC will signal all to stand. If there is a proper Last Gospel, the MC will see to it that the Sd transfers the Missal to the Gospel side.[14] During the Last Gospel, the MC will indicate to the inferior ministers to line up in formation for the procession back to the sacristy. When the Last Gospel is finished, the MC will make sure the SMs bow to the altar cross before descending to the foot and then take the birettas from the sedilia and go to the foot to the D’s right. The MC indicates a genuflection and then gives the C’s biretta to the D along with the D’s biretta. The MC gives the Sd his biretta directly. Then the MC line up in front of the Sd and processes out to the sacristy in front of the Sd. Once in the Sacristy, the MC will indicate for everyone to bow to the processional cross, if there is one, or to the Crucifix in the sacristy and then indicates for everyone to bow to the C. The C then gives the blessing traditionally given to all the ministers and officers of Mass. Then the MC will help with the divesting of the SMs, and see to it that everyone is carrying out their post-Mass clean up assignments, and then he will spend some time in thanksgiving to the Lord.

 

 

Deo Gratias

_________________________________________

---

[1] Key: C – Celebrant, D – Deacon, Sd – Subdeacon, SMs – Sacred Ministers, AC – Acolyte, Th – Thurifer, Cr – Crucifer, Tb – torchbearer.

[2] The MC will be overseeing the Sacred Ministers distributing Holy Communion and watching for enemies of the Church, Saboteurs, proper dispositions of the laity, and any accidents committed by the Sacred Ministers.

[3] The MC must remember that, throughout the liturgy, his normal place is at the C’s side, so that he may assist him in any way needed. He is an attendant to the Celebrant, he is not an inferior minister of the altar. This is why his hands are folded in a way that is distinct (his hands cupped together) from the other servers. This is also why he does not assume any duty that an inferior minister has to do. What is set out in this whole instruction is simply a general guide to an MC. Because of this, it is supposed that he has accurate knowledge of the entire function and the De Defectibus. Also, in the discharge of his duties he has no fixed place, nor act. Much will depend on circumstances. He must be considered quite free in his movements in order that he may secure the most perfect possible position overseeing the ceremonies. In general, of course, the [first] MC is to be regarded as chiefly concerned with the C at any function.

[4] N.B.: if any inferior minister must go to the sacristy, he must reverence the C sitting at the sedilia with a bow. If it’s just the D and Sd sitting at the sedilia he does not bow. If an inferior minister must leave the sanctuary, on the way back he must reverence both sides of the choir and then genuflect and then reverence the C at the sedilia if he is sitting there.

[5] At ferial Masses of Advent, Lent, Ember days, fasting vigils and at Masses for the dead the members of choir and inferior ministers (AC 1&2, Th, Cr, Tb, etc.) kneel for the Collect and Postcommunion & in Lent the Oratio super populum.

[6] Should there be a long Sequence or Tract, after the Sd has been blessed, the MC may lead the SMs – without any previous reverence to the altar – to the sedilia, and conduct them back – as after the Gloria – towards the end of the chant. During the Lenten feriæ of which the Adiuva nos is sung – Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays – the SMs kneel at the edge of the predella and the MC kneels at his place during this versicle, the incense being put into the censer afterwards. Incense may be put into the censer before the SMs kneel for the Adiuva nos, in which case the MC will have to ensure the C reads the Gospel in time.

[7] This would seem to be a French custom. However, it is maintained by some to be Romanitas as well, but research is lacking. In any case, the author adds it here as an option.

[8] If the C gives the sermon at the predella or a lectern on the sanctuary floor, he doesn’t have to take off the chasuble and may wear his biretta.

[9] While the MC is at the Missal, he is attending the C so he cannot really oversee the whole execution of everybody getting incensed. However, he should keep his senses on the alert in case something goes wrong during the incensing of the clergy, SMs, Choir, and inferior ministers.

[10] MC makes a medium bow of the body and recites the Sanctus with SMs and signs himself.

[11] At ferial Masses of Advent, Lent, Ember days, fasting vigils and at Masses for the dead the members of choir and inferior ministers (AC 1&2, Th, Cr, Tb, etc.) kneel from the Sanctus to Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum inclusive. The exception to this rule is the vigils of Christmas, Easter, Pentecost, and the Ember days in Whitsun week.

[12] If the MC is a Priest it is most likely he will have already celebrated his private Mass in the morning, and if he is a cleric it is more than likely he will have received Holy Communion at an earlier Low Mass or Communion Service outside-of-Mass. If the MC is a layman it would be meritorious for his interior life if he has the opportunity to attend two Masses – a Low Mass to receive Holy Communion and then the Missa Cantata or Missa Solemnis in which he serves as MC. It will be more conducive to his duties as attendant to the Celebrant if he has already received Holy Communion at a previous Mass. A good number of saints and holy Popes in the Middle Ages would, as a common practice, celebrate multiple Masses and as a part of their thanksgiving after Holy Communion assist at multiple Masses as a part of their devotion.

[13] If there is a proper Last Gospel, the Missal remains open.

[14] There are different methods for doing this ceremonial action. The subdeacon can make the transfer of the missal stand in one complete action by taking the missal stand, genuflecting on the lowest step, and then placing the missal stand on the Gospel side, all of which is done while the Celebrant is reciting the Placeat tibi. Or the subdeacon may take the missal stand and then stand beside the deacon as he would for the final blessing, kneel for the final blessing and then complete the action by placing the missal stand on the Gospel side. The subdeacon then stands at his usual position, by the missal stand, while the Celebrant recites the Proper Last Gospel.

St. Thomas Aquinas and the Immaculate Conception

 

ST. THOMAS AQUINAS 

AND 

THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION

 

THESIS: 

Contrary to the claims of the Modernists and liberals, St. Thomas Aquinas is not held universally to have rejected the Immaculate Conception.

I

n fact, the principles of St. Thomas Aquinas provided the basis for the definition of the dogma, when it finally came in 1854.

Often men dig deep, really deep, to find an excuse to not follow the Angelic Doctor. One of the biggest excuses used and one that is intellectually dishonest and has been hyped up throughout the years is the Angelic Doctor’s stance on the Immaculate Conception.

As Fr. Terence Quinn, O.P. so adequately put it:

“It is usually about the time of his second year in High School that the student’s belief in Papal Infallibility meets head on with the celebrated Galileo episode. Not many years later, a newly acquired appreciation of St. Thomas’ eminent position in Theology is put to a similar test with the question “How about his denial of the Immaculate Conception?” Once a clear idea of the true meaning of Papal Infallibility is had and Galileo’s difficulty with the Inquisitors is put into its proper historical framework, the first problem is easily settled.[1] The second one, however, is not dispelled so readily. Yet a consideration of these same points, the exact meaning of the doctrine and its historical background, will help to remove many of the false notions about the Angelic Doctor’s teachings on the Immaculate Conception.”[2]

There is a great benefit to looking at the whole of St. Thomas’s career in order to try and discern a development in the thought of Angelic Doctor from his youth to his maturity. This historical approach can yield great insight — for example, Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange’s defense of St. Thomas’s belief in the Immaculate Conception depends upon not only reading the Summa, but his Commentary on the Sentences, and other works, particularly St. Thomas’ academic sermon on the Angelic Salutation written towards the end of his theological career.

It is a fact that St. Thomas Aquinas has magisterial authority in philosophy and theology as dictated by the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church,[3] Canon Law,[4] and the decrees of the Sacred Congregation of Studies.[5] St. Thomas Aquinas holds a unique place among the Doctors of the Church.[6] He has become the official theologian of Christ’s Mystical Spouse, her Universal Doctor. She has canonized his teaching, making it her own in all its essential elements.[7] And so this would beg the question,[8] how can a Saint and Doctor[9] of the Church miss something so fundamental? And the short answer is the Angelic Doctor did not miss anything. But the adversaries ignore St. Thomas’ magisterial authority and for the sake of argument and making our point stand out all the more, we will not bring the magisterial authority of the Angelic Doctor into consideration. We can prove our thesis merely with the teaching of theologians. According to the theologian Fr. Salaverri, St. Thomas Aquinas’ authority is intrinsic, extrinsic, and canonical.[10]

ADVERSARIES:

Adversaries to this thesis generally include modernists, liberals, other heretics, the willfully ignorant and obstinate, and those untrained in the theological sciences and history. The former (modernists, liberals, and other heretics) need the Angelic Doctor to be defamed in order to bolster their positions of error. In addition to those already cited, there are other opponents to this thesis which include the Neo-Platonists, theosophists, and Gnostics who also need to make St. Thomas Aquinas appear lesser in the eyes of faithful Catholics and theologians. The two main errors these groups employ include: 1) solely relying on the Summa Theologica instead of taking into account the entire opera omnia of the Angelic Doctor. This is an unfortunate tactic and one that is not given equally to other theologians and Doctors of the Church. Nobody would solely rely on one volume of St. Robert Bellarmine’s opera omnia or on one volume of Fr. Billot’s writings, or one volume of the many works of Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P. So why does St. Thomas Aquinas get this special treatment? It defies common sense. And 2) they seek to make synonymous the words ‘uncommitted’ and ‘denied.’ It will be shown that the common opinion of theologians states that St. Thomas Aquinas was either uncommitted to the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception or that he embraced the doctrine at the end of his theological career, which can be seen in his sermon on the Angelic Salutation. The option of St. Thomas Aquinas denying the Immaculate Conception does not even enter the debate amongst theologians. The tactics 1) of using the word ‘denied’ instead of ‘uncommitted’ or 2) loosely interpreting the word ‘uncommitted’ to mean ‘denied,’ is very cunning and intellectually dishonest and to a great extent has been unfortunately successful.     

In refutation of the enemies of the Angelic Doctor, we will see what Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange, and other theologians have to say in an attempt to form a common opinion amongst the theologians on the matter, thereby, one day, designating this thesis ‘Probabilis.’[11]

 

ARGUMENTUM I.

The Opinion of Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P.

 

Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange teaches in his Treatise, “Christ the Savior,” Ch. 40:

“It seems that we must distinguish between three periods in the life of St. Thomas as to his teaching on this subject.

In the first period, which was from 1253 to 1254, he affirmed the privilege, for he wrote: “Such was the purity of the Blessed Virgin Mary, who was exempt from both original and actual sin.”[12]

In the second period, St. Thomas sees more clearly the difficulties of the problem, and, because some theologians said that Mary had no need of redemption, the holy Doctor affirms that, according to revelation,[13] Christ is the Redeemer of the human race, and that nobody is saved without him. But giving no thought to preservative redemption, St. Thomas seems to deny the privilege of the Immaculate Conception, saying: “It remains, therefore, that the Blessed Virgin was sanctified after animation,”[14] St. Thomas fails to distinguish, as he often does in other questions, between posteriority of nature, which is compatible with the privilege, and posteriority of time, which is incompatible with it. He says: “The Blessed Virgin did indeed, contract original sin,”[15] not sufficiently distinguishing between the debt of incurring original sin and the fact of incurring it.

Concerning the question as to the precise moment when the Blessed Virgin was sanctified in the womb, St. Thomas does not come to any conclusion. He only says: “This sanctification took place immediately after her animation,”[16] and “it is not known when she was sanctified.”[17]

It must be observed with Fathers del Prado, O.P.,[18] Mandonnet, O.P.,[19] and Hugon, O.P.,[20] that the principles invoked by St. Thomas do not contradict the privilege and remain intact if preservative redemption be admitted. But St. Thomas, at least in this second period of his life as teacher, does not seem to have thought of this most perfect mode of redemption. Moreover, it must be noticed that the feast of the Conception of the Blessed Virgin was not as yet celebrated in Rome;[21] but what is not done in Rome, does not appear to be in conformity with tradition.

In the last period of his life, however, from 1272 until 1273, St. Thomas wrote a work that is certainly authentic.[22] In a recent critical edition of this small work made by J.F. Rossi, CM, we read: “For she [the Blessed Virgin] was most pure because she incurred the stain neither of original sin nor of mortal sin nor of venial sin.”[23] If it be so, then St. Thomas at the end of his life, after mature reflection, and in accordance with his devotion toward the Blessed Virgin, again affirmed what he had said in the first period of his life.[24] 

We must note other passages indicative of this happy return to his first opinion.[25] A similar change of opinion is often enough to be found in great theologians concerning very difficult questions that belong to Mariology.

First something of the privilege is affirmed in accordance with tradition and devotion; afterward difficulties become more apparent which give rise to doubts, and finally upon more mature reflection, enlightened by the gifts of the Holy Ghost, the theologian returns to his first opinion, considering that God’s gifts are more fruitful than we think and there must be good reasons for restricting their scope. But the principles of St. Thomas, as we have observed, do not decide against the privilege, they even lead to it, at the same time as the mind is acquiring an explicit notion of preservative redemption. Thus St. Thomas probably at the end of life reaffirmed the privilege of the Immaculate Conception. Father Mandonnet[26] and Father J. M. Voste[27] thought so.”

Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange also teaches in “Reality: A Synthesis in Thomistic Thought,” Ch. 37:

“Was St. Thomas in favor of granting to Mary the privilege of the Immaculate Conception? Many theologians, including Dominicans[28] and Jesuits,[29] say Yes. Many others say No.[30] We hold, as solidly probable, the position that St. Thomas hesitated on this question. This view, already proposed by many Thomists, is defended by Mandonnet,[31] and by N. del Prado, E. Hugon, G. Frietoff, and J. M. Voste.[32] This view we here briefly expound.

At the beginning of his theological career[33] St. Thomas[34] explicitly affirms this privilege: The Blessed Virgin, he says, was immune, both from original sin and from actual sin. But then he saw that many theologians understood this privilege in a sense that withdrew the Virgin from redemption by Christ, contrary to St. Paul’s[35] principle that, just as all men are condemned by the crime of one man (Adam): so all men are justified by the just deed of one man (Christ, the second Adam): and that therefore, just as there is but one God, so there is also only one mediator, Christ, between God and men. Hence St. Thomas showed that Mary, too, was redeemed by the merits of her Son, and this doctrine is now part and parcel of the definition of the Immaculate Conception. But that Mary might be redeemed, St. Thomas thought that she must have the debt of guilt,[36] incurred by her carnal descent from Adam. Hence, from this time on, he said that Mary was not sanctified before her animation, leaving her body, conceived in the ordinary way, to be the instrumental cause in transmitting the debitum culpæ. We must note that, in his view,[37] conception, fecundation, precedes, by an interval of time, the moment of animation, by which the person is constituted. The only exception he allowed was for Christ, whose conception, virginal and miraculous, was simultaneous with the moment of animation.

Hence, when we find St. Thomas repeating that the Blessed Virgin Mary was conceived in original sin, we know that he is thinking of the conception of her body, which precedes in time her animation.

At what exact moment, then, was Mary sanctified in her mother’s womb? To this question he gives no precise answer, except perhaps at the end of his life, when he seems to return to his original view, to a positive affirmation of Mary’s Immaculate Conception. Before this last period, he declares[38] that we do not know the precise moment, but that it was soon after animation. Hence he does not pronounce on the question whether the Virgin Mary was sanctified at the very moment of her animation. St. Bonaventure had posed that question and like many others had answered in the negative. St. Thomas preferred to leave the question open and did not answer it.

To maintain his original position in favor of the privilege, he might have introduced the distinction, familiar in his works, between priority of nature and priority of time. He might thus have explained his phrase “soon after” (cito post) to mean that the creation of Mary’s soul preceded her sanctification only by a priority of nature. But, as John of St. Thomas[39] remarks, he was impressed by the reserved attitude of the Roman Church, which did not celebrate the feast of Mary’s Conception, by the silence of Scripture, and by the negative position of a great number of theologians. Hence he would not pronounce on this precise point. Such, in substance, is the interpretation given by N. del Prado and P. Hugon.[40] The latter notes further the insistence of St. Thomas on the principle, recognized in the bull Ineffabilis Deus, that Mary’s sanctification is due to the future merits of her Son as Redeemer of the human race. But did this redemption preserve her from original sin, or did it remit that sin? On this question St. Thomas did not pronounce.

In opposition to this interpretation two texts of the saint are often cited. In the Summa[41] he says: The Blessed Virgin did indeed incur original sin, but was cleansed therefrom before she was born. Writing on the Sentences,[42] he says: The Virgin’s sanctification cannot properly be conceived either as preceding the infusion of her soul, since she was not thus capable of receiving grace, or as taking place at the very moment of the soul’s infusion, by a grace simultaneously infused to preserve her from incurring original sin.

How do the theologians cited above explain these texts? They[43] answer thus: If we recall the saint’s original position, and the peremptoriness of the principle that Mary was redeemed by Christ, these two texts are to be understood rather as a debitum culpæ originalis than the actual incurring of the sin itself. Thus animation would precede sanctification by a priority of nature only, not of time.

Here we must remark, with Merkelbach,[44] that these opportune distinctions were not yet formulated by St. Thomas. The saint wrote “she incurred original sin,” and not “she should have incurred it,” or “she would have incurred it, had she not been preserved.” Further, the saint wrote: “We believe that the Blessed Virgin Mary was sanctified soon after her conception and the infusion of her soul.”[45] And he does not here distinguish priority of nature from priority of time.

But we must add, with Voste,[46] that St. Thomas, at the end of his life, seems to return to the original view, which he had expressed as follows:[47] Mary was immune from all sin, original and actual. Thus, in December 1272, he writes:[48] Neither in Christ nor in Mary was there any stain. Again, on the verse[49] which calls the sun God’s tent, he writes: Christ put His tent, i.e.: His body, in the sun, i.e.: in the Blessed Virgin who was obscured by no sin and to whom it is said:[50] “Thou art all beautiful, my friend, and in thee there is no stain.” In a third text[51] he writes: Not only from actual sin was Mary free, but she was by a special privilege cleansed from original sin. This special privilege distinguishes her from Jeremias and John the Baptist. A fourth text,[52] written in his last year of life,[53] has the following words: Mary excels the angels in purity, because she is not only in herself pure, but begets purity in others. She was herself most pure, because she incurred no sin, either original or actual, not even any venial sin. And he adds that she incurred no penalty, and in particular, was immune from corruption in the grave.

Now it is true that in that same context, some lines earlier, the saint writes this sentence: The Blessed Virgin though conceived in original sin, was not born in original sin. But, unless we are willing to find in his supreme mind an open contradiction in one and the same context, we must see in the word, “She was conceived in original sin,” not original sin itself, which is in the soul, but the debt of original sin which antecedently to animation was in her body conceived by the ordinary road of generation.[54]

We conclude with Father Voste:[55] “Approaching the end of his life here below, the Angelic Doctor gradually returned to his first[56] affirmation: the Blessed Virgin was immune from all sin, original and actual.”

Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange continues to defend our thesis by explaining the ‘arc’ in a theologian’s career, and in this instance the career of St. Thomas Aquinas, from his book, “The Mother of the Savior and Our Interior Life,” Preface:

“This book is intended to be an exposition of the principal theses of Mariology in their bearing on our interior life. While writing it I have noticed more than once how often it has happened that a theologian admitted some prerogative of Our Lady in his earlier years under the influence of piety and admiration of her dignity. A second period then followed when the doctrinal difficulties came home to him more forcefully, and he was much more reserved in his judgement. Finally there was the third period, when, having had time to study the question in its positive and speculative aspects, he returned to his first position, not now because of his sentiment of piety and admiration, but because his more profound understanding of Tradition and theology revealed to him that the measure of the things of God — and in a special way those things of God which affect Mary—is more overflowing than is commonly understood. If the masterpieces of human art contain unsuspected treasures, the same must be said, with even more reason, of God’s masterpieces in the orders of nature and grace, especially when they bear an immediate relation to the Hypostatic Order, which is constituted by the mystery of the Incarnation of the Word. I have endeavoured to show how these three periods may be found exemplified in the process of St Thomas’ teaching on the Immaculate Conception.

These periods bear a striking analogy to three others in the affective order. It has often been noticed that a soul’s first affective stage may be one of sense-perceptible devotion, for example to the Sacred Heart or the Blessed Virgin. This is followed by a stage of aridity. Then comes the final stage of perfect spiritual devotion, overflowing on the sensibility. May the Good God help the readers of this book who wish to learn of the greatness of the Mother of God and men to understand in what this spiritual progress consists.”

To make this point by Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange clear, I give his authoritative theological opinion below in detail (adapted and based on the chart given by A. Aversa):

PHASE 1

CLEAR SUPPORT OF IT

St. Thomas’s clearest support of the Immaculate Conception is in his Commentary (1252-1256) on Peter Lombard’s Sentences (Super Sent., lib. 1 d. 44 q. 1 a. 3 ad 3):

“puritas intenditur per recessum a contrario: et ideo potest aliquid creatum inveniri quo nihil purius esse potest in rebus creatis, si nulla contagione peccati inquinatum sit; et talis fuit puritas beatæ virginis, quæ a peccato originali et actuali immunis fuit.”

Purity is increased by withdrawing from its opposite: hence there can be a creature than whom no more pure is possible in creation, if it be free from all contagion of sin: and such was the purity of the Blessed Virgin who was immune from original and actual sin.

PHASE 2

GRAPPLING WITH IT

Summa Theologica III, written in 1272-1273, contains the famous question 27 on the Sanctification of the Blessed Virgin, in which he seems to deny the Immaculate Conception.

PHASE 3

RETURN TO HIS ORIGINAL POSITION

Explanation of the Lord’s Prayer, petition 5 (Lent 1273):

“...beatæ virgini, quæ fuit plena gratiæ, in qua nullum peccatum fuit.”

...the Blessed Virgin, who was full of grace, in whom there was no sin.

Commentary on Psalm 18 (1272-3):

“...beata virgine, quæ nullam habuit obscuritatem peccati.”

...the Blessed Virgin, who had no darkness of sin.

He preached, at Rome during Lent, his Sermon On the Angelic Salutation (Lent 1273):

“Ipsa (Virgo) omne peccatum vitavit magis quam alius sanctus, præter Christum. Peccatum enim aut est originale, et de isto fuit mundata in utero; aut mortale aut veniale, et de istis libera fuit. ... Sed Christus excellit beatam virginem in hoc quod sine originali conceptus et natus est. Beata autem virgo in originali est concepta, sed non nata.”

He says that the Blessed Virgin is full of grace with respect to three things. First, with respect to soul, which has every fullness of grace. For the grace of God is given for two reasons, namely, in order to act well, and to avoid evil. And with respect to these two the Blessed Virgin had most perfect grace. For more than any other holy person save Christ alone she avoided all sin. For sin is either original, and of this she was cleansed in the womb;[57] or mortal or venial, and of these she was free. Hence the Canticle of Canticles 4:7: “Thou art all fair, O my love, and there is not a spot in thee.” Augustine in “On Nature and Grace” writes: “The holy virgin Mary excepted, if all the holy men and women were here before us and were asked if they were without sin, they would cry out with one voice: ‘If we should say we have no sin, we would delude ourselves and the truth is not in us.’

Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange concludes Article II of his chapter on the Immaculate Conception from his book, “The Mother of the Savior and Our Interior Life,” with the following section. A section which defends the Angelic Doctor’s stance on the Immaculate Conception at the end of his career:

“As certain commentators have suggested, three periods may be distinguished in St. Thomas’s teaching.

In the first – that of 1253-1254, the beginning of his theological career – he supports the privilege, probably because of the liturgical tradition which favoured it, as well as because of his pious admiration for the perfect holiness of the Mother of God. It is in this period that he wrote (I Sent., d. 44, q. I, a. 3, ad 3): ‘Purity is increased by withdrawing from its opposite: hence there can be a creature than whom no more pure is possible in creation, if it be free from all contagion of sin: and such was the purity of the Blessed Virgin who was immune from Original and actual sin.’ This text states therefore that Mary was so pure as to be exempt from all Original and actual sin.

During the second period St. Thomas, seeing better the difficulties in the question – for the theologians of his time held that Mary was immaculate independently of Christ’s merits – hesitated, and refused to commit himself. He, of course, held that all men without exception are redeemed by one Saviour (Rom. 3: 23; 5: 12, 19; Gal. 3: 22; 2 Cor. 5: 14; 1 Tim. 2: 6). Hence we find him proposing the question thus in IIIa, q. 27, a. 2: Was the Blessed Virgin sanctified in the conception of her body before its animation? For, according to him and many other theologians, the conception of the body was to be distinguished from the animation, or creation of the soul. This latter [called today the consummated passive conception] was thought to be about a month later in time than the initial conception.

The holy doctor mentions certain arguments at the beginning of the article which favour the Immaculate Conception – even taking conception to be that which precedes animation. He then answers them as follows: ‘There are two reasons why the sanctification of the Blessed Virgin cannot have taken place before her animation: 1^st – the sanctification in question is cleansing from Original Sin…but the guilt of sin can be removed only by grace [which has as object the soul itself]…2^nd – if the Blessed Virgin had been sanctified before animation she would have have incurred the stain of Original Sin and would therefore never have stood in need of redemption by Christ…But this may not be admitted, since Christ is Head of all men (1 Tim. 2: 6).’

Even had he written after the definition of 1854 St. Thomas could have said that Mary was not sanctified before animation. However, he goes further than that here, for he adds at the end of the article: ‘Hence it follows that the sanctification of the Blessed Virgin took place after her animation.’ Nor does he distinguish, as he does in many other contexts, between posteriority in nature and posteriority in time. In the answer to the second objection he even states that the Blessed Virgin ‘contracted Original Sin.’[58] However, it must be recognized that the whole point of his argument is to show that Mary incurred the debt of Original Sin since she descended from Adam by way of natural generation. Unfortunately he did not distinguish sufficiently the debt from actually incurring the stain.

Regarding the question of the exact moment at which Mary was sanctified in the womb of her mother, St. Thomas does not make any definite pronouncement. He states that it followed close on animation – cito post are his words in Quodl. VI, a. 7. But he believes that nothing more precise can be said: ‘the time of her sanctification is unknown’ (IIIa, q. 27, a. 2, ad 3).

St. Thomas does not consider in the Summa if Mary was sanctified in the very instant of animation. St. Bonaventure had put himself that question and had answered it in the negative. It is possible that St. Thomas’s silence was inspired by the reserved attitude of the Roman Church which, unlike so many other Churches, did not celebrate the Feast of the Conception (cf. ibid., ad 3). This is the explanation proposed by Fr. N. del Prado, O.P., in Santo Tomas y la lmmaculada, Vergara, 1909, by Fr. Mandonnet, O.P., Dict. Theol. Cath., art. Freres Precheurs, col. 899, and by Fr. Hugon, O.P., Tractatus Dogmatici, t. II, ed. 5, 1927, p. 749. For these authors the thought of the holy doctor in this second period of his professional career was that expressed long afterwards by Gregory XV in his letters of July 4^th, 1622: ‘Spiritus Sanctus nondum tanti mysterii arcanum Ecclesiæ suæ patefecit.’

The texts we have considered so far do not therefore imply any contradiction of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. They could even be retained if the idea of preservative redemption were introduced. There is however one text which cannot be so easily explained away. In III Sent., dist. III, q. 1, a. 1, ad 2am qm, we read: ‘Nor (did it happen) even in the instant of infusion of the soul, namely, by grace being then given her so as to preserve her from incurring the original fault. Christ alone among men has the privilege of not needing redemption.’ Frs. del Prado and Hugon explain this text as follows: The meaning of St. Thomas’s words may be that the Blessed Virgin was not preserved from Original Sin in such a way as not to incur its debt, as that would mean not to stand in need of redemption. However, one could have expected to find in the text itself the explicit distinction between the debt and the fact of incurring the stain.

In the final period of his career, when writing the Exposito super salutatione angelica – which is certainly authentic[59] – in 1272 or 1273, St. Thomas expressed himself thus: ‘For she [the Blessed Virgin] was most pure in the matter of fault (quantum ad culpam) and incurred neither Original nor mental nor venial sin.’

 

ARGUMENTUM II.

The Opinion Of Other Theologians And Diverse Sources.

Here is Fr. Terence Quinn, O.P., again, who sums up the teaching of Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange and other prominent theologians:

“Some say outright that he opposed what in his day was not a defined dogma, but add that in the principles he laid down he virtually admitted it. A few claim he expressly defended the doctrine. Between these two extreme opinions there are those who say he was undecided; and others who merely maintain it is impossible to prove that he opposed the doctrine. A final thesis contends that he changed his position twice in the course of his writings.[60]

At this point we can safely say that the student who at the start of our investigation was asked, “How about his denial of the Immaculate Conception?” has a handsome piece of work before him if he wants to give an adequate answer!

However, two of the above-mentioned opinions have been set forth strongly in recent times and, though opposed, do shed much light on the difficulty.

One is that of the late Fr. Norbert Del Prado, O.P. In a lengthy and profound work he stoutly maintains St. Thomas defended the doctrine in his very words and in the principles he laid down.[61] Fr. Peter Lumbreras, O.P., followed this opinion in a brief pamphlet of a much lighter treatment.[62] The latter shows there are nine possible ways the term “Immaculate Conception” may be employed. St. Thomas denies eight of these, all of which are out of harmony with the subsequent definition of Pope Pius IX. The only one he does not deny is the only one possible to reconcile with the definition.

In their opinion St. Thomas taught that a personal sanctification by the merits of Christ is required; that Mary should have all the purity possible to be granted by God; and that a priority of nature within a single instant of time is sufficient to safeguard the doctrine.

They refrain from giving the noted Franciscan, Scotus, the praise he customarily receives for his espousal of the Immaculate Conception. Scotus did first popularize the important notion of a preservative redemption, but these two Dominicans disparage this since his conclusion to the appropriateness of the Immaculate Conception is based upon faulty principles. That this is not a unanimous persuasion among Dominicans we learn from another’s observation that, “Thomists should consider it a point of honor to admit that their adversary was right in this matter.”[63]

In those passages where it would seem St. Thomas does expressly oppose the doctrine, they maintain that his statements such as “she incurred original sin” and “incurred the infection” mean only that she “incurred the debt.”

Such a brief presentation of their position makes it sound arbitrary and high-handed, which is untrue. Del Prado’s thesis, in particular, is logical and well-documented. The points upon which he founds his position are acknowledged by another eminent theologian, Fr. Hugon; though he is content to say “it has not been demonstrated ... that the Angelic Doctor erred expressly,”[64] and doesn’t go so far as to indicate that he actually upheld the doctrine as defined.

The other prominent opinion has Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P., as its leading spokesman.[65] He maintains that St. Thomas originally supported the privilege out of admiration for the perfect holiness of Mary. Later, seeing the difficulties better, he hesitated and appears to deny it. Theologians of his time who upheld the doctrine said she was immaculate, independent of Christ’s merits. Thus Aquinas’ temporary apparent denial flowed from his insistence that all creatures, including the Blessed Virgin, had to be redeemed through Christ. In his last years, however, he returned to his original opinion and wrote, “She incurred neither original nor mortal nor venial sin.”[66]

Both of these opinions, as indeed do all on this subject, have difficulties which must be explained before they can demand assent. Yet, even those least prone to accept such theories must admit that if, according to their understanding of St. Thomas, he did deny this privilege to Mary, it was not because he overlooked her dignity and holiness; but simply because he deemed it derogatory to the universal mediatorship of Christ that any creature should not be redeemed by Him. All must agree also, that “he laid down the principles which, after they had been drawn together, and worked out through a longer course of thought, enabled other minds to furnish the solution of this difficulty from his own premises.”[67]

Since St. Thomas himself said, “We ought to abide by the authority of the Church, more than that ... of any doctor,” whatever was the true mind of the Angelic Doctor is now merely an historical problem; for the Church has declared in infallible language that Mary was indeed Immaculate.”

We also present a quotation from the Catholic Encyclopedia which will stand as the basis for the rest of the opinions given by subsequent theologians in this thesis:

“St. Thomas at first pronounced in favour of the doctrine in his treatise on the “Sentences” (in I. Sent. c. 44, q. I ad 3), yet in his “Summa Theologica” he concluded against it. Much discussion has arisen as to whether St. Thomas did or did not deny that the Blessed Virgin was immaculate at the instant of her animation, and learned books have been written to vindicate him from having actually drawn the negative conclusion. For this controversy see: Cornoldi, “Sententia S. Thomæ etc.,” (2^nd ed., Naples, 1870); Ronard de Card, “L’ordre des Freres-precheurs et l’immaculee Conception” (Brussels, 1864), Pesch, “Præl. dogm.” III (Freiburg, 1895), 170; Heinrich-Gutberlet, “Dogmat. Theol.,” VII (Mainz, 1896), 436; Tobbe, “Die Stellung des hl. Thomas zu der unbefl. Empfangnis” (Munster, 1892); C. M. Schneider, “Die unbefl. Empfangnis und die Erbsunde” (Ratisbon, 1892); Pohle, “Lehrbuch d. Dogmatik,” II (Paderborn, 1903), 254. Yet it is hard to say that St. Thomas did not require an instant at least, after the animation of Mary, before her sanctification. His great difficulty appears to have arisen from the doubt as to how she could have been redeemed if she had not sinned. This difficulty he raised in no fewer than ten passages in his writings (see, e.g., “Summa Theol.,” III, Q. xxvii, a. 2, ad Sum). But while St. Thomas thus held back from the essential point of the doctrine, he himself laid down the principles which, after they had been drawn together and worked out, enabled other minds to furnish the true solution of this difficulty from his own premises.”

Here is another son of St. Dominic, Fr. Lumbreras, O.P., who was cited previously in this thesis by Fr. Terence Quinn. Fr. Lumbreras explains another salient point, which was mentioned at the beginning of this thesis, that the St. Thomas Aquinas provided the basis for the definition of the dogma, when it finally came in 1854:

“There are nine different ways in which one can understand the term “immaculate conception.” St. Thomas denied the first eight of these meanings, and concerning the ninth one he did not speak at all. It was, however, the immaculate conception in the ninth sense that was defined as dogma by Pius IX. In other words, Aquinas only denied all erroneous definitions of “immaculate conception” and simply never considered as a possibility the one that was eventually proclaimed a dogma.”

Fr. Lumbreras enumerates nine different ways someone can be immaculately conceived. He shows St. Thomas denied the first of the first eight possibilities and Ineffabilis Deus affirmed the last. He argues that St. Thomas’s work on the Immaculate Conception led directly to the formulation of the dogma in Ineffabilis Deus. He also shows in his treatise that St. Thomas (not Scotus) was responsible for the distinction between priority in nature vs. priority in time. Fr. Lumbreras’s article provoked a Franciscan (Fr. Hugolinus Storff, O.F.M.) to write a whole book in response. A. Aversa says Fr. Storff’s “book is a fairly rambling, redundant attempt at refuting” Fr. Lumbreras and his points. A. Aversa continues, “Yes, Fr. Storff, O.F.M., argues that St. Bernard, St. Bonaventure, and the majority of theologians at the time “denied” the Immaculate Conception. I wouldn’t go so far as to say they denied it,[68] but would argue more like Fr. Lumbreras, O.P., that there are several ways in which there can be an “immaculate conception” and that St. Thomas did not deny the sense of “immaculate conception” of Ineffabilis Deus.”

Another son of St. Dominic, Fr. Placid Conway, O.P. contributes to the common opinion of theologians and gives an extraordinary rendering of St. Thomas Aquinas in his book, “Saint Thomas Aquinas, of the Order of Preachers.” We give here the segment pertaining to the matter at hand:

“His devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary was tender and deep, as evinced by his writings, and by this prayer: ...

A complete Mariology has been compiled from his works, drawing out Mary’s singular graces. [The work of Rev. Dr. Morgott, Ratisbon.] He upheld the privilege of her exemption from original sin. It is an old-established saying, that, “with St. Thomas a man can never be wrong, nor can he be right without him.” That he upheld Mary’s sinless conception can be established from extrinsic and intrinsic evidences. It is the verdict of his weightiest exponents, such as Capponi de Porrecta, Joannes a Sancto Thoma, Natalis Alexander, John Bromeyard of Oxford, and many more. At the Council of Basle, John of Segobia upheld the Immaculate Conception from St. Thomas’s writings. Theologians of first rank have held the same view, such as Vega, Eichof, Nieremberg, Sylveira, Thyrsus Gonzalez, Stefano Chiesa, Plazza, Spada, Cornoldi, Cardinal Sfondrato, Cardinal Lambruschini, etc.

If we open his writings we have the intrinsic evidences of various passages. In his “Opusculum,” LXI, de Dilectione Dei, et Proximi, we meet this passage: “For the more complete manifestation of His power, the Creator made a mirror which is brightest of the most bright, more polished and more pure than the Seraphim, and of such great purity that there can not be imagined one more pure, except it were God: and this mirror is the person of the most glorious Virgin.”

In his “Commentary on the First Book of the “Sentences,”” he twice makes use of this sentence: “The Blessed Virgin Mary shone with a purity greater than which under God cannot be comprehended.” (Dist. XVII, Quest. II, art. 4, 3m). Here is his proof: “Increase of purity is to be measured according to withdrawal from its opposite, and since in the Blessed Virgin there was ‘depuratia’ from all sin, she consequently attained the summit of purity; but yet under God, in Whom there is no capability of defect as is in every creature of itself.” And again he writes in Dist. XLIV, Quest. I, art 3 “Purity is increased by withdrawal from its opposite, and consequently some created being can be found purer than which nothing can be found in creatures, if never sullied by defilement of sin, and such was the purity of the Blessed Virgin, who was exempt from original and actual sin.” Some think that the expression “depuration” argues cleansing from stain; but such was not the meaning which St. Thomas attached to the word. The Holy Fathers frequently use this word with regard to God Himself. St. Augustine, Peter Lombard, Fulgentius, Ferrandus, Hugh of St. Victor, also use it of God, while a whole host of writers employ it when speaking of Christ: St. Thomas uses it twice in his treatise on the Incarnation, and Dionysius makes use of it with regard to the heavenly Hierarchies. So then, “depuratio ab omni peccato” does not mean “cleansing from all sin,” but “exemption from all sin.” The Angelic Doctor knew the scientific value of the term used, and his critics do not. The expression used above “immunis a peccato” is the one employed by Pope Pius IX in proclaiming the dogma.

There is no need to expatiate on the fact that St. Thomas was a consummate logician, and consequently not likely to teach in one part of his writings the contrary to what he lays down in another. In the First Part of the “Summa Theologica,” Question XXV, art. 6, ad. 4, he writes: “The Blessed Virgin, in that she is the Mother of God, has a kind of infinite dignity from the Infinite Good, which is God, and on this account nothing better than her can be made, just as there ~is nothing better than God.” Again in the Third Part, Question XXVII, art. 3, he says: “The closer a thing approaches to its principle in any order, the more it partakes of the effect of such principle. Hence Dionysius states in the fourth chapter of the ‘Heavenly Hierarchies,’ that ‘the angels being nearer to God, share more fully of the Divine perfections than men do.’ But Christ is the principle of grace authoritatively according to His Divinity and instrumentally in His humanity, as St. John declares in the first chapter (of the Gospel). ‘Grace and truth are made through our Lord Jesus Christ.’ But the Blessed Virgin was closest to Christ in His humanity, since He drew His human nature from her, and therefore she ought beyond all others to receive the fullness of grace from Christ.”

From these two passages we gather St. Thomas’s teaching as to Mary’s prerogatives. 1. She possessed an almost infinite dignity from her closeness to God, in this surpassing the angels. 2. She ought, that is, she had the right, to receive the fullness of Divine grace beyond all other creatures. Since then it is the work of grace to purify the soul by imparting to it the Divine beauty, it follows necessarily that grace wrought absolute sinlessness in her soul, and created boundless holiness. In this dual capacity of closest union with God, and being the appointed instrument of Christ’s humanity, she surpassed the angels, who never knew sin: she had a kind of infinitude in merit which none of them ever could have. How then can such teaching of St. Thomas be reconciled with the idea that Mary had ever been sullied for an instant with original sin? Let the theory be once admitted that Mary had been so defiled, then his two principles given above fall to the ground; admit his principles, and the Immaculate Conception is the logical result. The holy Doctor was well aware of the grace bestowed on those pre-eminent saints, Jeremiah and John the Baptist, yet he does not hesitate to place Mary incomparably beyond them, and attributes their sanctification to her as well as to her son. She must then, logically speaking, have received a greater grace than cleansing after conception.

In his exposition of the “Hail Mary” he distinctly declares the doctrine. “Thirdly, she exceeds even the angels in purity: because the Blessed Virgin was not only pure in herself, but even procured purity for others. She was most clean from fault, because she incurred neither original, nor mortal, nor venial sin.”

In his “Commentary on the Epistle to Galatians,” III, lect. VI, the original text runs thus: “Of all women I have found none who was altogether exempt from sin, at least from original sin, or venial, except the most pure, and most worthy of all praise, the Virgin Mary.”

Again in his “Commentary on the Epistle to Romans:” “All men have sinned in Adam, excepting only the most Blessed Virgin, who contracted no stain of Original Sin.”

Such are the readings of the first MS. Codices and early printed versions. In a marginal note written by St. Vincent Ferrer in his copy of the “Summa,” Part III, Question XXVII, art. 2, ad. 2m, are these words: “The Blessed Virgin was exempt from original and actual sin.” It was these original texts of early manuscript Codices which early defenders of the Immaculate Conception quoted for their opinion, such as St. Leonard of Port Maurice, Bernardine de Bustis, B. Peter Canisius, Cardinal Sfondrato, Salmeron, and many more. Weighty theologians such as Velasquez, Peter of Alva, Eusebius Nieremberg, Frassen, Lambruschini, Gual, and Palmieri, following the critical method of Hermeneutics, have held and shown that many passages of St. Thomas have been changed or interpolated. Let it suffice to adduce three apologetic writers who denounce such practices, and vindicate the purity of his text. Bishop Vialmo, a Friar Preacher: “Pro defensione Sancti Thomæ;” Egidius Romanus, a disciple of St. Thomas “Castigatorium: in corruptorem librorum S. Thomae Aquinatis;” Cardinal Sfondrato: “Innocentia Vindicata;” besides seven more apologists.” (Emphasis and bold added by the author of the paper).

I would also like to add to the common opinion of theologians one of the most eminent theologians from the 17^th century and beyond – John of St. Thomas. The Encyclopedia of Christian Theology, by Jean-Yves Lacoste, in agreement with Fr. Placid Conway, O.P., says that John of St. Thomas, “asserted that Aquinas had not rejected the notion of the Immaculate Conception.”

Further proof that it is not assumed by theologians that St. Thomas Aquinas denied the Immaculate Conception, is found in the following survey of the opinions of theologians on this question, from Volume VI, “Mariology,” of Pohle-Preuss, Dogmatic Theology (12 volumes) Herder 1953, page 67:

“5. The Teaching of St Thomas --- Theologians are divided in their opinion as to what was the mind of St Thomas in regard to the Immaculate Conception. Some frankly admit that he opposed what in his day was not yet a defined dogma, but insist that he virtually admitted what he formally denied. Others claim that the Angelic Doctor expressly defended the Immaculate Conception and that the (about fifteen) adverse passages quoted from his writings must be regarded as later interpolations. Between these two extremes stand two other groups of theologians, one of which holds that St Thomas was undecided in his attitude towards the Immaculate Conception, while the other merely maintains the impossibility of proving that he opposed it.”

And as John Lane relates in regards to this article of Pohle’s Manual:

“Pohle gives examples of each type of theologian – about four or five names for each group. So, we see from this that the ‘worst case’ we can assert is that St Thomas proved the Immaculate Conception with his principles, and yet failed to clearly formulate the conclusion, which of course later theologians did. Indeed the definition of 1854 was based entirely on his principles.”

Any layman then, who says blankly that “St. Thomas denied the Immaculate Conception,” is not only rash, but demonstrates his ignorance of the opinions of theologians, the majority of whom cannot assert this but indeed at a minimum say that he was uncommitted.

Again, as stated above, “a similar change of opinion is often enough to be found in great theologians concerning very difficult questions that belong to Mariology. First something of the privilege is affirmed in accordance with tradition and devotion; afterward difficulties become more apparent which give rise to doubts, and finally upon more mature reflection, enlightened by the gifts of the Holy Ghost, the theologian returns to his first opinion, considering that God’s gifts are more fruitful than we think and there must be good reasons for restricting their scope. But the principles of St. Thomas, as we have observed, do not decide against the privilege, they even lead to it, at the same time as the mind is acquiring an explicit notion of preservative redemption.”[69]

And finally, we have from the theologian, Fr. J.A. de Aldama, S.J., a solid consensus of modern scholars and theologians on the matter at hand being much debated:

“There is much debate about the true doctrine of St. Thomas.[70] See Alastruey, 1, 232-240; N. del Prado, Santa Tomas y la Inmaculada Conception (Barcelona 1909); Id., Divus Thomas et Bulla dogmatica “Ineffabilis Deus” (Friurg 1919); P. Lumbreras, Saint Thomas and the Immaculate Conception (Indiana 1924); P. Renaudin, La Pensee de Saint Thomas sur l’Immaculee Conception (Avignon 1926); Michel Ange, O.F.M. Cap., Saint Thomas et l’Immaculee Conception Or 11 (1927) 300-307; S. Schmutz, War der hl. Thomas Gegner der unbeflecten Empfangnis: BenedMschr 2 (1929) 523-527. More recently, Friethoff, Quomodo caro B.M. Virginis in originali concepta fuerit: Ang 10 (1933) 321-324. A historical solution according to which St. Thomas at the beginning and at the end admitted the Immaculate Conception, by P. Mandonnet (BullThom 1933, 164-167) proposed and later opposed by P. Voste (De mysteriis vitæ Christi² 13-20), and now defended by P. Garrigou-Lagrange, La Madre del Salvador 53-58, having supposed the critical edition of the minor work made by J.F. Rossi, S. Thomæ Aquinatis exposition salutationis angelicæ Div Thom (Pi) 34 (1931) 445-479; however on this see J. de Blic, Saint Thomas et l’Immaculee Conception: RevApol 56 (1933) 25-36. On this solution see Roschini in Marian 3 (19412) 81-83, and G. de Rosa, Importante problema di esegesi tomistica nella soluzione di due studios contemporanei: Marian 10 (1948) 133-159. See moreover S. Euzipi, Il pensiero di Tommaso de’Aquino reguardo al dogma dell Immacolata Concezione (Rome 1941), who holds that St. Thomas de facto taught nothing either for the Marian privilege or against it. On this book, see Roschini in Marian 3 (1941) 294-297, and the response of the author in Marian 4 (1942) 62-70. For this whole controversy see also C. Gutierrez, O.P., Immaculata Conceptio et Angelicus Doctor: DivThom (Pi) 57 (1954) 181-219; G. Fr. Rossi, A proposito de testi di San Tommasso relative all dottrina “De B.M. Virginis Coneptione:” ibid., 280-285: Quid senserit Angelicus Doctor S. Thomas de Immaculata Virginis conceptione: ibid. 333-392; L’autenticita dei testi di San Tommasso d’Aquino: “B. Virgo a peccato originali et actuali immunis fuit,” “B. Virgo nex originale…peccatum incurrit,” respectivamente degli anni 1254 e 1273; ibid., 442-466; M. Cuervo, Por que Santo Tomas no afirmo la Inmaculada: Virgo Immaculata 6, 11-68, or Salm 1 (1954) 622-674; R. Verardo, De concupiscentia in transmissione peccati originalis iuxta S. Thomam, ac de eius doctrinæ memento relate ad progressum dogmatis Immaculatæ Conceptionis B. Mariæ V.: Virgo Immaculata 6, 69-107.[71]

CONCLUSION:

“Any layman then, who says blankly that “St. Thomas denied the Immaculate Conception,” is not only rash, but demonstrates his ignorance of the opinions of theologians, the majority of whom cannot assert this but indeed at a minimum say that he was uncommitted.”[72] “The lengths to which the enemies of St. Thomas are prepared to go, in vain, in an attempt to undermine his authority are but genuine proofs of the fact mentioned by Pope Pius XI, “It is...clear why Modernists are so amply justified in fearing no Doctor of the Church so much as Thomas Aquinas.””[73]

Moreover, the one-sided view that it was the Franciscans contra mundum in regards to the defense of the Immaculate Conception also contributes to St. Thomas’ unfair, nay, slanderous treatment. It was not only the Franciscans upholding the doctrine of Immaculate Conception in days past. Spain’s royalty and peoples called for the proclamation of the dogma. The Dominican inquisitors & confessors of the Spanish court did not prohibit the Spanish Royals from taking oaths in defending the dogma at all costs, and at the Council of Trent twenty-five Dominican Bishops called for the Council to proclaim the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception a dogma. True, “many theologians of the Thomistic School, especially before the Council of Trent, opposed the doctrine of Mary’s Immaculate Conception, claiming that in this they were following St. Thomas. This, however, has not been the opinion either of the entire school or of the Dominican Order as a body. Father Rouard de Card, in his book “L’ordre des freres precheurs et l’Immaculée Conception” (Brussels, 1864), called attention to the fact that ten thousand professors of the order defended Mary’s great privilege.” We also have the anecdote from the theologian Fr. de Aldama, that in the 17^th century “from the Order of Preachers at this time one must cite as being for the privilege Catarinus, Campanella, Gulielmus Pepin, St. Louis Bertran Vincent I. Antist and eight Spanish Dominicans who, in the year 1618, petitioned the Holy Father to command the Fathers of their Order to preach publicly in favor of the Immaculate Conception and to recite her office of the day.”[74]

In conclusion, it is important to keep in mind that a theologian has a progression during his career and it is important to not misapply certain periods of their thought to what they held at the end. Also, one cannot draw an adequate and complete conclusion, which was still being debated by competent and eminent theologians, a conclusion debated amongst them which seems to have been going in the direction of being in favor of the Angelic Doctor adhering to the Immaculate Conception at the end of his theological career. One would then be contributing to the modernist and liberal argument if one chooses to maintain a view in which flat out denial of the Immaculate Conception is the same as being either (a) uncommitted to it when it was still up for debate amongst the Schools[75] or (b) was assented to at the end of the Angelic Doctor’s theological career.[76] The fact that St. Thomas Aquinas has magisterial authority in philosophy and theology will not be diminished by the enemies of  this glorious Saint, who is a Doctor five times over, because of their attempts to denigrate him, especially over an issue amongst theologians which is still debated, but leans in the Angelic Doctor’s favor, and which requires accuracy, adequate training in matters theological and historical, and a desire for truth.

---

[1] Editor’s Note: Especially when one considers that St. Robert Bellarmine proved himself to be a better scientist then Galileo “by disallowing the possibility of a “strict proof” of the earth’s motion, on the grounds that an astronomical theory merely “saves the appearances” without necessarily revealing what “really happens.”” Cf. eminent French physicist Pierre Duhem.

[2] Fr. Terrence Quinn, O.P., “St. Thomas’ Teaching on the Immaculate Conception,” Dominicana Journal, Vol. 38, No. 4.

[3] Cf. Æterni Patris (Leo XIII), Doctoris Angelicis (St. Pius X), Studiorem Ducem (Pius XI), and Non Multo Post (Benedict XV). A total of over 24 Popes dating back to Pope John XXII († 1334) have spoken of St. Thomas Aquinas and his works as deserving special attention and adherence. To name a few: John XXII (Acta Sanctorum), Clement VI (In Ordine Fratrum Prædicatorum), Blessed Urban V (Bull Copiosus), Nicholas V (Bull Piis Fidelium), Alexander VI (Bull Etsi Cunctæ), Pius IV (Bull Salvatoris), St. Pius V (Bull Mirabilis Deus), Clement VIII (Bulls In Quo Est & Sicut Angeli), Paul V (Bulls Splendidissimus Athleta & Cum Sicut), Benedict XIII (Bull Demissas Preces), Benedict XIV (Allocution to the Dominican General Chapter), Pius VI (Allocution to the Dominican General Chapter), Pius IX (Letter to Fr. Raymond Bianchi). For further reading on the Authority of St. Thomas Aquinas see the work by the eminent theologian, Fr. Santiago Ramirez, O.P., “The Authority of St. Thomas Aquinas,” The Thomist, Vol. XV, January, 1952 No. 1.

[4] C.I.C. 589; 1366, §2.

[5] The Twenty-Four Thomistic Theses (Acta Apost. Sedis, 1914, VI, 383 ff.) to be taught by all philosophy professors.

[6] There is indeed a ‘freedom of the schools.’ One is free to be a member of whatever School, be it Augustinian, Boventurian, Scotist, Suarez, Molina, etc. However, even if one belongs to one of the various theological schools, the teachers of these schools are obliged, in assent to the Magisterium, Canon Law, and decrees of the Roman Congregations, to teach, at a minimum, the 24 Thomistic Theses in Philosophy, and the “arguments, doctrine, and principles” (C.I.C. 1366 §2) of St. Thomas Aquinas in Dogmatic and Moral Theology, while still enjoying the autonomous freedom of their respective school.

[7] Cf. the Council of Florence, the Council of Trent and the First Vatican Council, and others.

[8] The question being from his adversaries in an attempt to ignore the Angelic Doctor’s teachings.

[9] St. Thomas Aquinas is indeed the Angelic Doctor, the Eucharistic Doctor, the Common Doctor, the Universal Doctor, and the Doctor par excellence.

[10] Cf. Sacræ Theologiæ Summa, IB, Keep the Faith Publications, pgs. 333-340.

[11] The Note ‘Probabilis’ means: “it is a theological opinion which is well founded either on the grounds of its intrinsic coherence or the extrinsic weight of authority favouring it.” An example of a theologically “probable” statement would be, “Judas received Holy Communion at the Last Supper. [Or] Judas didn’t receive Holy Communion at the Last Supper.” There is No censure attached to a contrary proposition. There is No effect of denial. “The better founded of two conflicting opinions is referred to as more probable; but Catholics are free to prefer some other opinion for any good reason.” Cf. “De Valore Notarum Theologicarum (Ad Usum Auditorum), Fr. Sixtus Cartechini, S.J., pgs. 134-135. Romæ, 1951, Typis Pontificale Universitatis Gregorianæ.

[12] Com. in I Sent., d. 44, q. 1, a. 3, ad 3.

[13] Rom. 3:23; 5:12, 19; Gal. 3:22; II Cor. 5:14; I Tim. 2:6.

[14] cf. IIIa, q. 27, a. 2.

[15] Ibid., ad 2.

[16] Quodl VI, a. 7.

[17] cf. IIIa, q. 27, a. 2, ad 3.

[18] Santo Tomas y la Immaculada.

[19] Dict. theol. cath., art. “Freres-Precheurs,” col. 899.

[20] Tractatus dogmatici, II, 749.

[21] cf. IIIa, q. 27, a. 2, ad 3.

[22] This work is entitled “Expositio super salutatione angelica.”

[23] cf. Divus Thomas, pp. 445-79, and Monografie del Collegio Alberoni. Sixteen out of the nineteen codices have the words “nec originale;” hence Father Rossi concludes that the text is authentic.

[24] cf. Com. in I Sent., d. 44, q. 1, a. 3, ad 3.

[25] cf. Compendium theologiæ, chap. 224, wherein we read: “Not only was the Blessed Virgin Mary immune from actual sin, but also from original sin, being purified in a special manner.” But it would not have been a special privilege if she had been purified as Jeremias and St. John the Baptist had been in the womb, some time after her animation. Likewise in the explanation of the Lord’s Prayer, the fifth petition, St. Thomas says: “Full of grace, in whom there was no sin." Also in the Com. in Ps. 14:2, we read: “There was absolutely no stain of sin both in Christ and the Blessed Virgin Mary.” Also Com. in Ps. 18:6, he writes: “There was no obscurity of sin in the Blessed Virgin.”

[26] Bulletin thomiste, January to March, 1933, pp. 164-67.

[27] See his Com. in Summam theol. S. Thomæ. De mysteriis vitae Christi; 18f. In the explanation of the Hail Mary, St. Thomas still says: “The Blessed Virgin was conceived in original sin,” but, as Father Voste observes: “Unless we admit an intolerable contradiction in this same passage, it must evidently be understood... as referring to the stain that is to be instrumentally transmitted through the seed and the flesh, but not at all of formal original sin personally, contracted by the soul and person of Mary.”

[28] S, Capponi a Porrecta (died 1614): John of St. Thomas (died 1644): Curs. theol.: Spada, Rouart de Card, Berthier; in our days N. del Prado, Divus Thomas et bulla init.; De approbatione doctrinæ S. Thomæ, d. II, a. 2; Noel Alexander; more recently, Ineffabilis Deus, 1919; Th. Pegues, Rev. thom.: 1909, pp. 83-87; E. Hugon, op. cit.: p. 748, p. Lumbreras, Saint Thomas and the Immaculate Conception, 1923; C. Frietoff, “Quomodo caro B. M. V. in peccato originali concepta fuerit” in Angelicum, 1933, pp. 32144; J. M. Voste, Comment. in III p. Summæ theol. s. Thomæ; De mysteriis vitæ Christi, 2nd ed.: 1940, pp. 13-20.

[29] Perrone, Palmieri, Hurter, Cornoldi.

[30] Among them we note: Suarez, Chr. Pesch.: I. BIIIot, I. Jannsens, Al. Lepicier, B. H. Merkelbach, op. cit.: pp. 127-30.

[31] Dict.. de theol. cath.: s. v. Freres Precheurs.

[32] See note 23.

[33] 1253-54.

[34] In Iam Sens.: dist. XLIV, q. 1, a. 3, ad 3.

[35] Rom. 5: 18.

[36] Debitum culpæ.

[37] IIIa, q. 33, a. 2.: ad 3.

[38] cito post: Quodl. VI, q. 5, a. 1.

[39] See note 23.

[40] See note 23.

[41] IIIa, q. 27, a. 2, ad 2.

[42] In IIIum, dist. III, q. 1, a. 1, ad 2.

[43] In particular, Del Prado and Hugon.

[44] Op. Cit.: pp. 129 ff.

[45] Quodl. VI q. 5, a. 1.

[46] Op. cit.: 2nd ed.: 1940, p. 18.

[47] See note 29.

[48] On Ps. 14: 2.

[49] Ps 18: 6.

[50] Cant 4: 7.

[51] Comp. theol.: chap. 224.

[52] Expositio Salutationis Angelicæ, Piacenza, 1931 (a critical edition, by F. Rossi, C. M.)

[53] April, 1273.

[54] April, 1273878 Cf. C. Frietoff, loc. Cit.: p. 329; Mandonnet in Bulletin thomiste, January-March, Notes and communications, pp. 164-67.

[55] op. cit.: 2^nd ed.: 1940, p. 19.

[56] In 1254, twenty years before his death. See note 29881 IIIa, q. 27, a. 5882 Ibid.: ad 2.

[57] St. Thomas [Aquinas] says Mary was cleansed of original sin in the womb, rather than conceived without original sin. He wrote long before the definition of the Immaculate Conception in 1854. But this shows that he did not “deny” the Immaculate Conception outright. This makes it seem that St. Thomas Aquinas did not deny the Immaculate Conception but adhered to a definition of the Immaculate Conception which was not used by Pope Pius IX when His Holiness declared, pronounced and defined the Dogma.  

[58] On the basis of these texts many commentators hold that St. Thomas denied the Immaculate Conception. This is the opinion of Fr. Le Bachelet, Dict. Theol., art. Immaculée Conception, cols. 1050-1054.

[59] Cf. Mandonnet: S. Th. Aq. opuscula omnia. Parisiis 1927, t. I, Introduction, pp. xix-xxii.

[60] First opinion: Scheeben; second: Valesquez and Palmieri; third: Malou and Tepe; fourth: Carnoldi and Hurtur. Cf. Pohle-Preuss, op. cit., p. 67. The fifth opinion: Garrigou-Lagrange and Voste. Cf. Garrigou-Lagrange, op. cit., pp. 66-71.

[61] Divus Thomas et Bulla Dogmatica “Ineffabilis Deus,” Fribourg, 1919.

[Editor’s Note: A. Aversa says this work by Fr. Del Prado is authoritative. And indeed, it has the Licentia Ordinis from Fr. Marco Sales, O.P., Master of the Sacred Palace (the Pope’s Theologian) and an Imprimatur by Very Rev. Fr. Leonardus Lehu, O.P., Master General of the Order of Preachers.]

[62] St. Thomas and the Immaculate Conception, Notre Dame, 1923.

[63] Garrigou-Lagrange, op. cit., p. 62.

[64] De Verbo Incarnate, Paris, 1920, p. 444.

[65] op. cit., pp. 66-71.

[66] Expositio super salutatione angelica, c. 1.

[67] Archbishop Ullathorne, The Immaculate Conception, London, 1905, p. 137.

[68] Editor’s Note: And particularly with St. Thomas Aquinas, we have shown already quite conclusively that this was much debated amongst theologians and that from this debate only two solutions could be held which are: 1) St. Thomas Aquinas ended up being uncommitted in giving a definitive answer in regards to the Immaculate Conception or 2) that he taught the Immaculate Conception at the end of his theological career. 

[69] John Lane.

[70] Editor’s Note: Based on Fr. Aldama’s opinion, one can hardly call a theory that is much debated, as conclusive proof that the Angelic Doctor denied the Immaculate Conception. The argument against those who accuse the Angelic Doctor of flatly denying the Immaculate Conception, instead of merely stating he was uncommitted or assented to it at the end of his career, are being slanderous towards the Angelic Doctor and the position of this thesis becomes more favorable.

[71] Sacræ Theologiæ Summa, IIIA, Keep the Faith Publications, p. 370.

[72] John Lane.

[73] Pius XI, Studiorum Ducem, June 29, 1923.

[74] Sacræ Theologiæ Summa, IIIA, Keep the Faith Publications, p. 372.

[75] And whose great scholastics “all admit[ted] her (the Blessed Virgin Mary’s) sanctification in the womb, exclusively; but also in such a way that the tendency became always stronger to admit her sanctification immediately after her conception. The main difficulty came from the universality of redemption by Christ. All those authors had such conviction about the purity and holiness of the Virgin that they would have willingly admitted the Immaculate Conception, if they had seen a way of reconciling it with the universality of redemption…” - Sacræ Theologiæ Summa, IIIA, Keep the Faith Publications, p. 369.

[76] Whether he held to the definition given by Pope Pius IX in 1854 or the definition contained in St. Thomas’ Sermon on the Angelic Salutation which is now, since 1854, obsolete and cannot be assented to anymore.